11 warriors

[Codaxx]

The Pac-12 wasn't going to dismiss a possible pod-system of four four-team subdivisions for scheduling purposes, but wouldn't agree to giving Texas favored treatment. Texas has its own network, the Longhorn Network, which is operated by ESPN. If Texas supported equal revenue sharing, then that would have meant more regional networks for the Pac-12 and even more money. But Texas wasn't willing to do that, according to the source.

The above in bold is a direct quote from the ESPN article no way Texas wasn't in LHN negotiations with ESPN in 2010 and the NETWORK revenue sharing was the issue why Texas did not join the PAC. That agrees with everything I posted so it is not made up and it is not BS.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest with anything I've posted it just doesn't agree with how you personally want to view the events so you're lashing out making personal remarks and trying to discredit the content. That is not only intellectually dishonest on your part but a pretty petty way to deflect and spin.

I really don't see what has your panties are in such a wad because I'm pretty sure by now you realize the LHN is not worth the opportunities it has cost Texas even if you won't publicly admit it.

You have continually lied about my position. It is who you are.

 

[Wild Turkey]

You have continually lied about my position. It is who you are.

What was a lie?

That you think the LHN wasn't the reason Texas didn't join the PAC? Seriously I have no idea what you think I lied about.

 

[Wild Turkey]

Just you. Read the actual link, genius

I read all of them and Scott is on record saying the LHN was the reason then contradicts himself and says it wasn't in a different link. I can't help it if he can't keep his story straight but ESPN the LHN partner is consistent in quoting him as it was the reason. The other sources come from a Dallas paper, a Texas forum and some article on a Texas A&M guy that I refuse to read through.

Personally I'm going with the ESPN reports.

 

[Codaxx]

I read all of them and Scott is on record saying the LHN was the reason then contradicts himself and says it wasn't in a different link. I can't help it if he can't keep his story straight but ESPN the LHN partner is consistent in quoting him as it was the reason. The other sources come from a Dallas paper, a Texas forum and some article on a Texas A&M guy that I refuse to read through.

Personally I'm going with the ESPN reports.

No. Notice the dates. Scott said LHN had 0 to do with it in 2010. It is mentioned in 2011. You can not apply the reasoning behind multiple negotiations.

 

[Codaxx]

What was a lie?

That you think the LHN wasn't the reason Texas didn't join the PAC? Seriously I have no idea what you think I lied about.

You said I flip flopped on my assessment of the Big 12. It was a lie.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

If you need more spatting here is a link to a July 2014 SportsHoopla thread.

Talking about Bill Powers

http://www.sportshoopla.com/forums/...discussion/154608-texas-longhorns-get-tt.html

At first it is Oklahoma and Texas posters

Then Wild Turkey climbs on board. Codaxx and Wild Turkey both start pissing into the wind.

I got involved on page 4 when the Texas posters were claiming the LHN did not exist, I pointed out the talks were happening and it was known the LHN was being negotiated in 2010.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

In 2010:

There was no LHN. That was just chaos about the Big 12 surviving.
It was a 6 team package deal, but both sides had some reservations.
Cal did not want religious Baylor. A&M did not want to go to the PAC-12.
Neither side could make the 6-pack work...thanks to Baylor mostly...and A&M a little bit

At the last minute, the Big 12 TV partners offered insane money as a lifeline.
They purposely over-paid because pure chaos was not worth the risk for the TV networks.
At that point, the money in the Big 12 was fine. The whole thing fizzled

In 2011:

It was Oklahoma going solo.
Texas was not interested.
I am not even sure OU wanted to go. They were just doing it to piss Texas off.
OU got some behind the scenes concessions.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

In 2010:

There was no LHN. That was just chaos about the Big 12 surviving.
It was a 6 team package deal, but both sides had some reservations.
Cal did not want religious Baylor. A&M did not want to go to the PAC-12.
Neither side could make the 6-pack work...thanks to Baylor mostly...and A&M a little bit

At the last minute, the Big 12 TV partners offered insane money as a lifeline.
They purposely over-paid because pure chaos was not worth the risk for the TV networks.
At that point, the money in the Big 12 was fine. The whole thing fizzled

In 2011:

It was Oklahoma going solo.
Texas was not interested.
I am not even sure OU wanted to go. They were just doing it to piss Texas off.
OU got some behind the scenes concessions.

You posted this same thing in the other thread and you don't seem to learn.

The LHN was being NEGOTIATED IN 2010.

Larry Scott knew about it but he said it was not a deal breaker as it could have been worked out. But the LHN was a MAJOR deciding factor for Texas in 2010.

Do you really think a deal of $285,000,000 from ESPN happened in one day on December 24, 2010, and was signed by a LAW SCHOOL Dean, Texas President Bill Powers, on the same day?

Come on, man.

 

[Texas Jefe]

not this again.

And all you people want to believe everything ESPin says? Do that at your own risk.


And all you people want to believe what some leader of any large entity (conference, school or network) says when something that many WANT to happen ends up NOT HAPPENING? Again, do so at your own risk.




Not really sure I believe ANYBODY in all the links, articles etc. Every single one of them wanted something, and DIDNT GET IT. What the hell you think they gonna say? What do butthurt people always say?


I'm done with this issue. Cant believe everyone wants to keep talking about it.

 

[Codaxx]

You posted this same thing in the other thread and you don't seem to learn.

The LHN was being NEGOTIATED IN 2010.

Larry Scott knew about it but he said it was not a deal breaker as it could have been worked out. But the LHN was a MAJOR deciding factor for Texas in 2010.

Do you really think a deal of $285,000,000 from ESPN happened in one day on December 24, 2010, and was signed by a LAW SCHOOL Dean, Texas President Bill Powers, on the same day?

Come on, man.

Larry Scott clearly doesn't know the situation, Husker boy does though. Let it go. It's been rehashed a 1000 times and if Larry Scott's words can't change your mind, than there is no way an anonymous poster can. Time to agree not to agree and move on

 

[Wild Turkey]

You said I flip flopped on my assessment of the Big 12. It was a lie.

Well it does kinda seem like it for instance here is a view you have expressed in the past:

- The Big 12 is as strong top to bottom as any conference.

Then in this thread:

- Texas and ND are the only 2 programs not "wed" to strong conferences

Comments from the past:

- WV & TCU bring greater value then Missouri and Texas A&M
- The Big 12's exit penalties guarantee the conference will survive

Then in this thread:

- Your open to Texas moving

I get what your doing as long as you're stuck in the Big 12 you want to build it up but if you can get a better deal you're all in to bolt. Nothing wrong with that it's natural to want a better situation then what you have but at times your wants do contradict with where you are.

I find it interesting that no one is truly happy in the Big 12 you have two teams that feel they are stuck and the rest of the league just hoping those two stay stuck or they are screwed.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Here is some good stuff

From Tom Palaima

https://www.utexas.edu/directory/index.php?q=palaima&scope=all&submit=Search

From 2008-2011, he was UT representative on the national Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. His COIA reports for 2009, 2010 and 2011 can be found by searching the UT Faculty Council Web site.

Nevertheless, this administrative doctrine makes it possible for the chief academic officers at UT to sign off on decisions made in a sports silo by a set of cronies with virtually no check on their opinions, values, decisions, or claims.

These cronies have the support of the regents and of the members (including regental appointees) of the Men's Athletics Council. Figures within the academic administration and on the faculty who should resist – when, for example, Athletics takes royalty and trademark revenues away from academics, or seriously reduces payouts to the UT Co-op – do not resist, because they know they would be risking their own positions of power, money, and comfort.

Until 2006, Athletics gave virtually nothing back to the academic mission. Since the national championship and setting up of the Longhorn Network, claims are made that the football program gives back $15-20 million annually to the university. Such claims should not be taken at face value. The back in "give back" is the truly operative word. Relatively small funds are truly "given" by Athletics to the university for academics and research unrelated to the primary interests of Athletics. Allocation of these funds is not under the control of the faculty. They have been controlled and distributed by the president strategically.

Enforcing the 'Double Standard': Major college sports insanity is entrenched at UT-Austin - News - The Austin Chronicle

 

[Wild Turkey]

Larry Scott clearly doesn't know the situation, Husker boy does though. Let it go. It's been rehashed a 1000 times and if Larry Scott's words can't change your mind, than there is no way an anonymous poster can. Time to agree not to agree and move on

He is quoted as saying the LHN was a factor then in other sources that it wasn't. If you read all the links I'm not sure we really know what Scott thinks or what he really said and he isn't here to settle it.

The circumstantial evidence points to it being a factor and I don't see how anyone can dispute that. No way were the LHN negotiations not going on at the same time as the PAC negotiations therefore they were a factor and highly probable a very important one.

 

[GoldRusher]

Just to see it happen I WOULD like to see a GOR get tested to see if its as iron clad as people think. If there is any truth to this at all then the BIG and Texas (or insert any other member/courting conference) can want to all they want but without those tv rights it aint gonna happen. If we are talking several teams getting an invite then....lookout.

BTW Penn State, tOSU, Maryland , and Rutgers don't want none of this for that other BIG division

 

[HuskerinBig10]

He is quoted as saying the LHN was a factor then in other sources that it wasn't. If you read all the links I'm not sure we really know what Scott thinks or what he really said and he isn't here to settle it.

The circumstantial evidence points to it being a factor and I don't see how anyone can dispute that. No way were the LHN negotiations not going on at the same time as the PAC negotiations therefore they were a factor and highly probable a very important one.

The way I have read it,

In 2010, Larry Scott KNEW about the LHN with Texas and ESPN being negotiated. But it was not the reason the Texas to the PAC 10 did not happen. It was because of politics.

He felt that the LHN, Texas, PAC 10, and the PAC 10 Network could have been worked out.

What I find hard to believe is that some Texas posters literally do not think the LHN was even being talked about in any conference talks Texas was having with anyone. When in fact they were. The LHN contract was signed on December 24, 2010 by Deloss Dodds and William Powers. I highly doubt those two astute minds would sign a contract without quite a bit of negotiations. It took three years for the Big 12 to be formed.

 

[Codaxx]

Well it does kinda seem like it for instance here is a view you have expressed in the past:

- The Big 12 is as strong top to bottom as any conference.- I said that like 3-4 years ago. I said Big 12 was bad last year. Long term future and level of play is not the same thing

Then in this thread:

- Texas and ND are the only 2 programs not "wed" to strong conferences.. I said Big 12 is not perceived as a strong conference. That is hardly a revelation

Comments from the past:

- WV & TCU bring greater value then Missouri and Texas A&M- I said had better teams at the time.
- The Big 12's exit penalties guarantee the conference will survive..during that time period. I am not guaranteeing it will live in forever

Then in this thread:

- Your open to Texas moving- always have been I do not see where I contradicted that.

I get what your doing as long as you're stuck in the Big 12 you want to build it up but if you can get a better deal you're all in to bolt. Nothing wrong with that it's natural to want a better situation then what you have but at times your wants do contradict with where you are.

I find it interesting that no one is truly happy in the Big 12 you have two teams that feel they are stuck and the rest of the league just hoping those two stay stuck or they are screwed.

Those aren't contradictions. I think the Big 12 lacks in population and brand recognition. I think the level of play has exceeded those limitations. I have said that I think has maybe the best collection of coaches in any conference, but that is a long term problem. Where is KSU when Snyder is gone? TCU after Patterson? Baylor after Briles? Will OSU fall back after Gundy?

 

[BTHOtu]

Anyone else notice ESPN running a UT-A&M rivalry commercial a lot lately. This was one of several commercials from like 6 or 7 years ago that featured several teams. I haven't seen the other ones that feature some of the other teams. Or maybe they have and I haven't seen them.

Wonder what their angle is being how the rivalry is indefinitely suspended...

 

[Texas Jefe]

that is strange

 

[Wild Turkey]

Those aren't contradictions. I think the Big 12 lacks in population and brand recognition. I think the level of play has exceeded those limitations. I have said that I think has maybe the best collection of coaches in any conference, but that is a long term problem. Where is KSU when Snyder is gone? TCU after Patterson? Baylor after Briles? Will OSU fall back after Gundy?

IMO they are for example: You can't say the Big 12 is Strong top to bottom then say a Texas isn't in a strong conference without it being a contradiction.

Regardless it really doesn't matter but it certainly doesn't make me a liar and my comments absolutely didn't deserve your personal remarks.

 

[BucksFanInGA]

The Big XII has a lot of great teams, just not a lot of eyeballs in that part of the country to watch those teams... Outside of the major cities in Texas it's all small markets...